Otto
August 6, 2003, 7:18pm
61
But hate speech laws have been ruled unconstitutional. There is a difference.
RickJay ,
Kudos for an exceptional rant. I give it a 10.
Funny that they didn’t threaten eternal damnation for all of their own clergy that were fucking little boys. Nope, better to just move those priests to another town so that they could have another go at it with some new meat. I guess homosexuality is only forgivable if your partner isn’t of legal age to consent.
These fucking hypocrites need to become extinct.
Muffin
August 6, 2003, 10:10pm
63
*Originally posted by RickJay *If you read the law, exclusion © pretty much allows as much latitude as you want to give. The law is barely applied and is generally assumed to be meant to stop people from inciting hatred in a way that would lead to a disturbance of the peace. Just saying “I think black people are inferior” wouldn’t get you arrested.
Here is a excerpt from the summary of Regina v. Harding (2001), 160 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (Ontario Court of Appeal) which might help explain what is and is not acceptable in religious expression:
**The accused, a Christian pastor, was charged with two counts of wilfully promoting hatred against Muslims in relation to two pamphlets he wrote and distributed. He was also charged with two counts of the same offence in relation to two recorded telephone messages at a number that he invited members of the general public to call. Prior to creating and distributing the pamphlets, the accused had distributed two fliers, which had received a negative reaction from the Muslim community. The accused testified that Muslims saw his evangelizing as hatred. The first pamphlet was aimed at activities at a certain school and was circulated to homes near the school. It asserted that the Muslim religion was full of hate and violence. He also suggested that Muslims practised a false religion that was a “threat to our children”. The accused testified that he created and distributed the pamphlet in response to an article in a pro-Muslim publication and that he did not intend to promote hatred against Muslims and did not foresee this probable effect of his actions. The accused admitted to being inaccurate in his portrayal of the Muslim publication. He also admitted that the fact that he equated Muslim extremists with all Muslims might convey the wrong message. The second pamphlet suggested Muslims in Canada are terrorists. In his testimony, the accused said he was not referring to all Muslims in Canada, mainly Muslim fundamentalists. The accused’s telephone message was similar in nature. He similarly testified that he had meant to focus on Muslim fundamentalists, and not Muslims in general, even though the message made no such distinction. The trial judge found that both pamphlets and one of the telephone messages promoted hatred against an identifiable group and the accused either foresaw that the promotion of hatred was substantially certain or was wilfully blind to this substantial certainty. The trial judge rejected that the statements were made in good faith, within the meaning of s. 319(3) of Criminal Code. The accused was found guilty of both counts relating to the pamphlets, but only on one count relating to the telephone messages.
**
Yes, that is what many will think of you and your toadying to the popular opinion of the intolerant.
Ooo!! Me first! Me first!
CITE PLEASE
Thousands of years of STUDY?
<lol>